When Syed Refaat Ahmed took office as Chief Justice of Bangladesh on August 11, 2024, many hoped that his distinguished academic background and reformist image would signal a new era for the judiciary. The country, still reeling from the fall of the Awami League government just days earlier, stood at a political and constitutional crossroads. Amid demands for justice, accountability, and institutional integrity, the judiciary was poised to play a pivotal role in restoring public trust and protecting fundamental rights. Instead, Ahmed’s tenure has been defined by a troubling silence in the face of targeted violence, legal double standards, and a chilling erosion of democratic safeguards.
This article will demonstrate how, under Chief Justice Ahmed’s leadership, the Supreme Court has presided over an alarming slide into selective justice and institutional complicity. From mob assaults on sitting judges and lawyers to politically driven acquittals of powerful elites, the Ahmed court has failed to confront the worst excesses of the post-revolution landscape. Even as journalists and academics face intimidation and reprisals, the judiciary has offered no meaningful refuge. This is not a story of a judiciary leading national reform—it is a record of abdication, where symbolic reform has obscured real, and often violent, breakdowns in the rule of law.
Seizing the Chief Justice’s Seat through Religious Extremist Mob Rule
The August 5, 2024, uprising marked a turning point in Bangladesh’s political and judicial landscape. What began as a coordinated wave of student-led protests swiftly escalated into a systemic purge of the judiciary. On August 10, Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan abruptly resigned amid accusations that he had attempted a judicial intervention to facilitate the return of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Protesters, some reportedly mobilised through platforms linked to religious hardliners, accused him of collusion with the old regime and demanded his resignation, setting a 1:00 p.m. ultimatum for him and other senior judges.
In rapid succession, resignations followed across the judiciary, particularly targeting judges perceived to be sympathetic to the previous administration. In the wake of this orchestrated exodus, Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed—until then a judge of the High Court Division—was swiftly named the 25th Chief Justice of Bangladesh by President Mohammed Shahabuddin in response to the mob demand.
The appointment of Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed was not a routine exercise of constitutional procedure but the culmination of a meticulously orchestrated campaign of mob-led intimidation. The forced resignation of Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, under explicit threats and time-bound ultimatums issued by protestors, constituted not a voluntary departure but a capitulation to criminal coercion. The simultaneous and systematic resignation of multiple Appellate Division judges further underscores the atmosphere of fear engineered by those mobilising religious extremist sentiment. In effect, what unfolded was a judicial coup by proxy, executed not through formal state apparatus but through the calculated use of unlawful mob pressure. The elevation of Justice Ahmed, occurring at the precise moment the judiciary had been emptied of dissenting voices, reflects not a coincidence of seniority but a prearranged outcome enabled by the erasure of institutional resistance through criminal force.
Unleashing Mob Violence and Religious Extremism
Under Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed’s leadership, the judiciary did not merely fail to contain the rise of religious extremism—it became a silent enabler of it. The power vacuum following the August uprising quickly devolved into a breeding ground for mob violence and sectarian terror. In November 2024, the politically charged arrest of Hindu leader Krishna Das Prabhu on trumped-up sedition charges ignited deadly unrest in southeastern Bangladesh. The clashes—fueled by religious animosity—left scores injured and resulted in the death of Saiful Islam Alif. Yet even as blood was spilt, the Supreme Court stood idle. Chief Justice Ahmed’s court issued no restraining orders, launched no inquiries, and provided no constitutional relief—effectively greenlighting impunity for sectarian thuggery.
But judicial inaction soon turned into judicial endorsement. In a move that defied the memory of Bangladesh’s liberation struggle and undermined decades of transitional justice, the Supreme Court, under Justice Ahmed’s direct oversight, revived the appeal of Jamaat-e-Islami, a group found guilty of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. By granting a legal foothold to a party historically linked to mass atrocities and radical ideology, the Chief Justice not only insulted the victims of 1971 but also empowered a new wave of extremist politics. What unfolded was not judicial neutrality; it was a betrayal cloaked in robes, where the highest court in the land became complicit in legitimising the very forces that thrive on fear, violence, and religious division.
Turning a Blind Eye to Mob Attacks on Accused During Court Transit
Since assuming office on August 11, 2024, Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed has presided over a judiciary that has not only lost control over the rule of law, but has actively abdicated its duty to protect those entitled to constitutional safeguards. Following the toppling of Sheikh Hasina’s government, Bangladesh plunged into mob-led retribution, with public fury swiftly morphing into street justice. During this volatile period, individuals accused of affiliations with the former regime, particularly allies of the Awami League, were routinely attacked while in judicial custody or transit to court. Far from isolated incidents, these were recurring episodes of orchestrated public vengeance, often covered extensively by national dailies. One such report, published on September 15, 2024, details an attempted assault on a former cabinet minister en route to a Dhaka court, foiled only by last-minute police intervention.
What stands out with chilling clarity is the complete silence of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Ahmed. Not a single directive was issued to bolster security protocols for the accused. No suo moto rulings. No institutional condemnation of the violence. No warnings to law enforcement for dereliction of duty. This was not mere inaction, but moral desertion at the highest level of the judiciary. By turning a blind eye to these violations, the Chief Justice permitted mob violence to fester as a substitute for due process, thereby eroding the foundational principle that every accused, regardless of political affiliation, is entitled to a fair trial and state protection. In any functioning democracy, the judiciary stands as a bulwark against mob rule. Under Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, it became a passive witness to its rise.
Under Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, who took office on August 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has been scrutinised regarding its capacity to safeguard accused individuals during their transportation to court in the context of mob violence. This period succeeded the removal of Sheikh Hasina’s government on August 5, 2024, characterised by extensive unrest, including assaults on individuals linked to the ousted regime. This analysis utilises Bangladeshi newspapers in English and Bangla, alongside contextual examination, to assess significant incidents and the judiciary’s response, or absence thereof, as of April 3, 2025.
A separate incident pertains to allies of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, although details are less thoroughly recorded. Reports from English outlets such as Dhaka Tribune and Bangla publications like Jugantor indicate that there were sporadic attacks on Awami League affiliates en route to courts during August and September 2024, coinciding with public outrage regarding the actions of the previous regime. On November 30, 2024, it was reported in several national dailies that former cultural affairs minister Asaduzzaman Noor was allegedly assaulted by injured students involved in the July-August movement when he was taken to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) from jail for treatment. Reportedly, no action was taken against the attackers.
What stands out with chilling clarity is the complete silence of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Ahmed. Not a single directive was issued to bolster security protocols for the accused. No suo moto rulings. No institutional condemnation of violence. No warnings to law enforcement for dereliction of duty. This was not mere inaction, it was moral desertion at the highest level of the judiciary. By turning a blind eye to these violations, the Chief Justice permitted mob violence to fester as a substitute for due process, thereby eroding the foundational principle that every accused, regardless of political affiliation, is entitled to a fair trial and state protection. In any functioning democracy, the judiciary stands as a bulwark against mob rule. Under Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, it became a passive witness to its rise.
Systematic Denial of Bail to Political Opponents: High Court’s Arbitrary Rejection of Anticipatory Bail
In October 2024, the judiciary under Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed revealed its increasing hostility toward legal neutrality when a two-judge High Court bench abruptly abandoned hearings on 789 anticipatory bail petitions—many filed by grassroots leaders and activists associated with the Awami League, the political opposition of the current government. This mass procedural desertion was not just a breach of judicial decorum; it was a weaponisation of silence. By walking away mid-hearing, the bench left hundreds of citizens exposed to arbitrary arrest, denying them even a minimal chance at legal protection. These were not faceless figures—they were known political actors caught in the crosshairs of a post-coup vendetta, and their petitions represented a final lifeline in an increasingly lawless system.
Far from upholding institutional integrity, Chief Justice Ahmed responded not with a demand for accountability, but with quiet complicity. His decision to “reconstitute” the bench—without explanation, inquiry, or sanction—functioned as a paper-thin procedural fix designed to deflect scrutiny. Meanwhile, accusations of favouritism, bribery, and deliberate political targeting surfaced among the legal community, leading to open confrontations between lawyers and judges. Yet, once again, the Chief Justice remained silent. His failure to discipline or investigate judicial misconduct not only emboldened further abuses but confirmed a chilling truth: under his leadership, the High Court had ceased to be a forum for justice and had become an instrument of political reprisal.
Suspension of High Court Judges
In a move that shattered any remaining illusion of judicial independence, Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed orchestrated the forced sidelining of 12 High Court judges in October 2024, not through formal inquiry or judicial discipline, but in direct response to mob agitation and ideological hysteria. Caving to demands from extremist student groups and politicised civil society outfits, Justice Ahmed placed the judges on “leave” based on vague allegations of affiliation with the previous Awami League government. These so-called charges—corruption, bias, and misconduct—were never tested in any tribunal, never scrutinised by any commission, and never afforded the basic protection of due process.
The situation escalated into a full-scale institutional disgrace when, on October 16, over a thousand members of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement stormed the Supreme Court premises, chanting slogans and demanding the purge of what they called “pro-Awami League fascist judges.” A faction of Lawyers also joined in, not to defend the sanctity of the judiciary, but to call for the imprisonment of colleagues tied to the former ruling party. Rather than defending the judiciary from this outright assault on its autonomy, Chief Justice Ahmed capitulated the very next day, banning 12 judges from adjudicating. He offered no defense of judicial impartiality, no safeguard against trial by public frenzy. His actions set a chilling precedent: that judges could be exiled from the bench not through lawful process, but through ideological pressure and mob coercion.
Worse still, while judges were silenced, pro-opposition lawyers—also targeted by the same mobs—were left unprotected, unaddressed, and vilified without institutional defense. In effect, Chief Justice Ahmed sanctioned a political cleansing of the judiciary, allowing street-level radicalism to dictate the bench’s composition and casting a long, dark shadow over the future of Bangladesh’s legal system.
Weaponising the Supreme Judicial Council
In December 2024, Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed took one of the most dangerous steps yet in consolidating control over the judiciary—he weaponised the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), transforming what was once a mechanism for safeguarding judicial integrity into a covert tool of political retribution. Under his supervision, the reinstated SJC quietly submitted confidential reports to President Mohammed Shahabuddin targeting a number of High Court judges who had been appointed during the Awami League’s tenure. The language of “impartiality” and “integrity” was cynically deployed to mask what was, in reality, an orchestrated purge of judges viewed as politically inconvenient.
No details of the allegations were made public. No opportunity for rebuttal was afforded to the accused. The entire process reeked of a backdoor inquisition, designed not to preserve the rule of law but to enforce loyalty to the new judicial-political order. The secrecy surrounding the reports was not incidental—it was instrumental. By hiding the contents and recommendations, Chief Justice Ahmed ensured that political motives could masquerade as institutional scrutiny, shielded from public oversight and legal challenge. The Council, meant to uphold the constitution, had under his hand become an instrument of silent intimidation—a velvet noose around the necks of judges who dared to serve under a previous government.
Rather than strengthening accountability, Justice Ahmed has repurposed the Supreme Judicial Council into a judicial guillotine: arbitrary, opaque, and politically loaded. The message was unmistakable—past affiliations would not be tolerated, and the bench would be purged not by evidence or ethics, but by secret memos passed under the table of power.
Orchestrated Attacks on Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik
On August 24, 2024, retired Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik—once a vocal critic of BNP founder Ziaur Rahman and an emblematic figure of the judiciary—was brutally attacked by a politically charged mob while being escorted to court in Sylhet. What began with chants and jeers quickly escalated into a savage assault: he was punched, kicked, pelted with eggs and shoes, and dragged up the courthouse steps while bleeding profusely. The attack left him critically injured, including a ruptured testicle that required emergency surgery.
Despite the blatant criminality of this act—an attack on a former Supreme Court justice in broad daylight, on court premises, in front of police officers—there has been deafening silence from Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed. Nearly eight months since the incident, not a single institutional condemnation, protective directive, or inquiry has been issued by the Supreme Court under his leadership. The symbolic weight of this silence cannot be overstated: in the face of a violent lynching attempt on one of its own, the apex court chose not justice, but submission.
Worse still, Justice Manik was promptly remanded to jail by a lower court under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, despite the absence of a formal complaint from the Border Guard Bangladesh—another disturbing sign of a judiciary weaponised against individuals tied to the former regime. That the mob was composed of pro-BNP lawyers and demonstrators who coordinated their presence at the courthouse only reinforces the notion that this was not a spontaneous outburst, but an orchestrated act of political vengeance.
Chief Justice Ahmed’s refusal to denounce this atrocity—committed under his watch, within the shadow of the very court he leads—amounts to tacit approval. His silence has emboldened recurring mob justice, compromised judicial dignity, and sent a chilling message to every judge—retired or sitting—that allegiance to the rule of law over the ruling government’s interest will be punished, and the court will do nothing to protect you.
Egg Assault on Justice Md Ashraful Kamal in Open Court and Impunity for Perpetrators
In an incident that should have shaken the foundations of judicial dignity, High Court Justice Md Ashraful Kamal was brazenly assaulted in open court in November 2024—eggs hurled at him by a group of lawyers enraged by his remarks about former President Ziaur Rahman in a judgment that Ziaur Rahman was a military usurper- which is a true fact. This shocking act of courtroom vandalism took place not in the shadows, but during a live court session, under the gaze of Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed’s judiciary.
Yet, despite initial platitudes—Ahmed issued a press note voicing “concern” and pledging “necessary steps”—no concrete disciplinary action followed. As of April 3, 2025, there is no public record of contempt proceedings, bar association sanctions, or even internal investigations against the attackers. The perpetrators, lawyers by profession but vandals in conduct, walked away untouched. The Chief Justice, who once famously issued contempt charges against police for far lesser offenses, has now retreated into silence when he is in charge of the entire judiciary.
This abdication of authority is more than procedural negligence—it is complicity by omission. The Supreme Court’s failure to respond decisively to an assault on one of its sitting judges has emboldened a culture of impunity within the legal fraternity and sown fear among judges expected to rule impartially in a polarised landscape. The inaction not only violated the sanctity of the courtroom but also undermined Article 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees due process and the right to legal representation—rights now routinely trampled under mob intimidation and selective silence.
Ahmed’s retreat into bureaucratic reforms and vague institutional platitudes, while judges are assaulted and lawyers openly threatened, reveals a troubling pattern: symbolic leadership without spine. When faced with a direct test of his commitment to judicial independence, Chief Justice Ahmed blinked.
Politically Motivated Acquittals of Corrupt Elites
During Syed Refaat Ahmed’s tenure as the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has presided over an astonishing spree of acquittals for high-profile political elites—each case more revealing than the last in its timing, beneficiaries, and implications for judicial integrity. Rather than heralding a new era of accountability, the post-uprising judiciary has become a revolving door of impunity for the politically powerful.
On August 11, 2024—the very day Justice Ahmed was appointed Chief Justice—Nobel laureate and interim Prime Minister Muhammad Yunus was abruptly acquitted in a corruption case filed by the Anti-Corruption Commission. The message was clear: elevation to political leadership now guarantees judicial absolution. The pattern deepened in January 2025 when former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia saw her final corruption conviction overturned, erasing a decade-long prison sentence and clearing the path for her political re-entry.
Most damningly, the Supreme Court’s four-member bench—personally led by Chief Justice Ahmed—suspended the prison sentence of Tarique Rahman, long accused of corruption and criminal conspiracy, along with his associate Gias Uddin Al Manun. This decision, unaccompanied by transparent reasoning or public justification, amounted to a judicial pardon delivered from the highest seat of justice.
Adding to the litany, the High Court also acquitted Lutfozzaman Babor, a former state minister once convicted in a major cross-border arms trafficking case. Taken together, these rulings form not a coincidence, but a coordinated rehabilitation of political actors strategically aligned with the current interim government.
Chief Justice Ahmed’s tenure has thus far not only normalized selective justice—it has weaponized the judiciary to reward allies and cleanse the reputations of key players in the interim political order. This is not judicial independence; it is judicial surrender dressed in the garb of reform. The court has become less a forum of legal principle and more a stage for political theatre, where justice is scripted in backrooms and verdicts serve political agendas.
Complicity in Suppressing Academic Freedom at His Own Alma Mater
While Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed parades judicial reform and integrity on the national stage, his silence on the suppression of academic freedom, just steps away from his Supreme Court chamber, speaks louder than any reformist rhetoric.
Since August 2024, scores of academics—many from the University of Dhaka’s Law Department, Ahmed’s own alma mater—have faced dubious charges ranging from sedition to administrative misconduct. Their real offense? Not joining the coup attempt against an elected government, or their potential ability to criticise the authoritarian excesses of the interim government. Though the specifics remain undocumented in full, faculty and student reports paint a grim picture of retaliatory proceedings that eerily echo the tactics of the very regime Bangladesh claims to have overthrown.
The epicentre of this repression, Dhaka University’s Faculty of Law, sits less than a mile from the Supreme Court. And yet, by April 2025, neither a single suo motu action nor a public rebuke has emerged from the bench of Chief Justice Ahmed—a man whose own career was built on this very institution’s commitment to critical thought and dissent.
Despite touting a “zero tolerance” approach to corruption and hosting international meetings on judicial independence, Ahmed has remained conspicuously unmoved on academic freedom—even as university administrations recycle the same tools of harassment once wielded by the ousted Awami League. No writs. No inquiries. No constitutional safeguarding of Article 39 rights.
This judicial abdication is not merely symbolic; it is systemic. While the Supreme Court managed to prioritise politically convenient acquittals for elites and high-profile bail dramas, it could not muster the will to protect academics facing professional exile. In stark contrast to Ahmed’s 2019 human rights advocacy and high-minded lectures, his inaction now serves to normalise administrative vendettas against scholars.
If silence is complicity, then the Chief Justice has chosen a side. And it is not with the intellectuals who once made Dhaka University—and the nation’s judiciary—a moral compass.
Endorsing the Violation of Lawyers’ Right to Representation
Under Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed’s tenure, the judiciary has witnessed a troubling erosion of the fundamental right to legal representation, particularly for lawyers affiliated with the former ruling Awami League. The mass detention of 70 senior lawyers in April 2025, all linked to the Awami League, marks an unprecedented crackdown on legal professionals. These lawyers were made part of frivolous suits and criminal cases filed in the aftermath of the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government.
This incident is not isolated. In October 2024, the legal wing of the Jatiya Nagorik Committee demanded action against lawyers supporting the Awami League, with protest leaders calling for their arrest within 24 hours. Subsequently, in November 2024, a lawyer known for representing Awami League clients was assaulted outside a courtroom, compelling him to temporarily cease his practice.
Despite these alarming developments, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Ahmed has not issued clear directives to protect the rights of these lawyers or to condemn the extrajudicial methods employed against them. This silence stands in stark contrast to the judiciary’s constitutional obligation to uphold the right to legal representation and to ensure that all individuals, regardless of political affiliation, have access to justice.
The judiciary’s inaction in the face of mob violence and intimidation tactics has effectively sanctioned a climate where legal professionals are targeted for their associations, undermining the very foundations of a fair and impartial legal system. Chief Justice Ahmed’s emphasis on institutional stability appears to have come at the expense of individual rights, raising serious concerns about the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic principles during this turbulent period. If the judiciary cannot defend the right of even its least popular officers to practice law without fear, what remains of its independence?
Enabling the Crackdown on Press Freedom
Under the leadership of Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has remained conspicuously silent amid an unprecedented assault on press freedom following the political upheaval of August 2024. Despite the judiciary’s constitutional mandate to uphold freedom of expression under Article 39, the Court has failed to intervene as journalists face harassment, violence, and censorship.
Since the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, over 350 journalists have been harassed, with 74 cases of violence reported, 113 criminal charges filed, and press credentials revoked for 167 journalists. Media outlets perceived as sympathetic to the former regime, such as Dainik Janakantha, Bangladesh Pratidin, Channel 24, and Somoy TV, have been targeted by mobs, leading to assaults, vandalism, and forced closures.
The judiciary’s inaction is particularly glaring given its proximity to these events and its role as a guardian of constitutional rights. Chief Justice Ahmed, who has publicly advocated for judicial integrity and independence, has not initiated any suo motu actions or writ petitions to address these violations. This silence effectively endorses the suppression of dissenting media voices and undermines the judiciary’s credibility.
International observers, including the Human Rights Watch (HRW), have expressed concern over the judiciary’s failure to protect press freedom. The lack of judicial response not only emboldens those perpetrating these attacks but also signals a troubling departure from the principles of justice and accountability.
Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed’s tenure will likely be remembered for this abdication of responsibility, where the judiciary’s passivity contributed to the erosion of press freedom in Bangladesh.
Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed’s tenure has unfolded as a paradox: outwardly committed to reform and institutional stability, yet inwardly complicit in the erosion of fundamental rights and judicial integrity. Under his watch, Bangladesh’s judiciary has tolerated or enabled mob violence against judges, politically motivated acquittals of elites, attacks on lawyers’ right to representation, and a sweeping crackdown on the press. Despite bold rhetoric, Ahmed’s court has remained largely mute on violations at his own alma mater, the University of Dhaka, where academics face retribution for dissent. His selective activism—prioritising structural reforms while neglecting individual justice—has bred a judiciary that appears detached from the lived realities of repression and political vendetta.
In failing to respond with urgency to such grave assaults on judicial and democratic norms, Ahmed has cast doubt on his own legacy. His silence, particularly when proximity and power demanded intervention, has transformed the Supreme Court from a constitutional bulwark into an accessory to institutional decay. This moment called for a Chief Justice who would rise above political winds and protect the republic’s conscience. What it received instead was a figure of restraint, watching history unfold from the steps of the courthouse.
Konok Taheria: PhD Researcher in Interdisciplinary Research on Contemporary Social Issues, Canada. She can be reached at konoktaheria@gmail.com.
English